non-English sender and body

I get a lot of spam from Chinese senders and Chinese subjects but only an image for the body. I want to mark as spam any non-English sender names and subjects. I tried TextCat but either I did it wrong or it only looks at the Body.

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 12:09:27 -0400 Rob McEwen wrote: > And some on this thread are not realizing that DNSWL has various > LEVELS in its ratings of senders I don't see anything in this thread to suggest that. > most of the time that > a virus-sent spam is sent from an IP in DNSWL, it is from a

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

Also, often, the Return Path certified sender is an ESP who sends for a variety of customers. There is not always an absolute guarantee that every one of that ESP's customer is ethical and truthful. A good ESP will quickly fire such any such "bad apple" customer... but some do a much better job

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:34:06 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > it's enough *once time* overlook the small letters besides soem > checkbox saying "we give your data to our partners" and so agree > without intention while it's hard to impossible to realize the > connection when wekks or months later a m

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

Am 10.07.2015 um 17:15 schrieb Ian Zimmerman: On 2015-07-10 16:36 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: most users enable checkboxes which are needed to get random forms submitted, even if they say "i agree to get mails from here and there" and are missing the context when that mails are coming later

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

On 2015-07-10 16:36 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > most users enable checkboxes which are needed to get random forms > submitted, even if they say "i agree to get mails from here and > there" and are missing the context when that mails are coming later You don't know me, so you can hardly claim a

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 09:06:58 +0200 Matthias Leisi wrote: > For the record, this is the reason why dnswl.org > does not charge for listings (and we don’t call it certification): it > always leads to conflicts of interest. Yes, I trust dnswl.org. What we need is a meta-reputat

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

Am 10.07.2015 um 16:34 schrieb Ian Zimmerman: On 2015-07-10 13:54 +0100, RW wrote: I don't get any spam at all in the return-path lists. ... I don't doubt that there's some abuse, but I also find it hard to believe that the accuracy of the return-path rules isn't dominated by user behav

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

On 2015-07-10 13:54 +0100, RW wrote: > I don't get any spam at all in the return-path lists. > ... > I don't doubt that there's some abuse, but I also find it hard to > believe that the accuracy of the return-path rules isn't dominated by > user behaviour. Can you specify "user behaviour" in mo

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

On Thu, 9 Jul 2015 18:07:07 -0400 Dianne Skoll wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:58:39 +1000 > Noel Butler wrote: > > > +1 > > I'll throw my +1 in on this also. Almost by definition, the kinds of > organizations who buy into these certifications to get their mail > delivered are unlikely to be t

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

On 7/9/2015 6:07 PM, Dianne Skoll wrote: On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:58:39 +1000 Noel Butler wrote: +1 I'll throw my +1 in on this also. Almost by definition, the kinds of organizations who buy into these certifications to get their mail delivered are unlikely to be the kinds of organizations I w

Re: Return Path (TM) whitelists

> Am 10.07.2015 um 00:07 schrieb Dianne Skoll : > > On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 07:58:39 +1000 > Noel Butler wrote: > >> +1 > > I'll throw my +1 in on this also. Almost by definition, the kinds of > organizations who buy into these certifications to get their mail > delivered are unlikely to be the